Tag Archive: John Redwood

2013
03/29

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
12 Comments »

Censorship: MP Style?

On his blog, John Redwood posted an article entitled: “When might Germany get fed up paying for the Euro?”. Among the comments is one by Andy Baxter, timed at 8:07am. Notwithstanding the fact that when commenting on Redwood’s blog it is known that your comments are moderated, one should be able to assume that providing said comment does not contain profanity or is of a libellous nature, it will be published.

That which Andy Baxter submitted (compare and contrast) read:

“Question: “When might Germany get fed up with paying for the Euro?”
Answer: Never
Analysis: Why? because the Franco German alliance is the EU. ‘Le Project’ has always and will always be about domination of the European land mass of Europe and its peoples, politically, ideologically, financially, legislatively, psychologically, and a whole host of other ‘ically’ ways never even thought of yet by a ruling elite or what we call a ‘political class’ unelected, unaccountable and totally corrupted by the exercise of POWER!

And by the way Mr. Redwood Germany doesn’t pay for the EU, we do, all 500 million of us irrespective of our nationality. And we do so because people of your ilk under the broken not fit for purpose system of ‘representative democracy’ don’t and won’t listen to people like us and our wishes.

Ladies and Gentlemen there is another way and it’s voice is growing: Reform2013“

There is nothing on Redwood’s blog that states links are not permitted and indeed, after the comment by Andy Baxter, there appears one from Denis Cooper, timed at 9:33am, which contains a link to an article by Open Europe. It seems odd for an MP who is a member of a government which professes to believe in transparency to edit comments and cut out that with which he/she may have no belief or affinity – but I digress.

Personally, I do not moderate comments, although I do edit any that contain profanity of any description. Once a blog owner moderates to the extent of omitting material, the content of which he may not agree, then what is being practised is but a form of censorship.

Another point worth mentioning is that John Redwood only rarely replies to comments, something I attempt to do on an individual basis. It is appreciated that Redwood gets far more comments than do I and to respond individually might not be possible for him due to time constraints. However Norman Tebbit always ends a post responding to comments made on his previous post – and I am sure that Norman Tebbit is just as busy as John Redwood – but again I digress.

Is it possible that John Redwood did take a look at the link Andy Baxter posted and thought: that is my power curtailed, I’m buggered if I’m going to allow that link!

Just asking, Mr. Redwood, just asking……….

 

2013
03/25

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
12 Comments »

Are people responsible for state debt?

Following his post: “L’etat ce n’est pas moi”, John Redwood, presumably in the same thread, posts another entitled: “As a voter in a democracy, am I responsible for the debts of the state?“. In respect of his question my immediate response was ‘No’, John, because you don’t live in a democracy – but I digress.

Redwood writes:

“The truth is that the debts incurred by the state are debts that we all collectively owe. If you stay in the country you pay. When it becomes clear a state has borrowed too much and will find it difficult to borrow more, the political choices all become unpleasant. They revolve around one simple issue – how do you share out the pain of paying.”

Perhaps Mr. Redwood can show me the agreement, bearing my signature on the dotted line, one which confirms my liability for said debt? When considering his question about how does one share out the pain of payiing might I suggest that until such time as the people have collectively agreed to expenditure of public money, it is the politicians who should be personally liable for said debt? When has any government asked we who provide the money they require, if we agree to provide it?

I notice that the Coalition of Resistance is holding a press conference to launch a mass anti-austerity campaign, one being attended by two MPs and a collection of comedians. Yet two more MPs wishing to decide whether we tighten our belts or they spend more of our money. By no stretch of the imagination can Redwood, Lucas and Clark claim that that is democracy in action – perhaps they would be agreeable to the people taking part of their income and informing them what it will be spent on for their benefit, without their having any voice in the matter? Perhaps those three MPs, together with the commenters on Redwood’s post linked to above, should go and read the 6 Demands?

Commenting on what he calls a frankly silly and ill-analysed piece in the Guardian this morning by Anthony Painter, Raedwald makes the point that there is:

“a desire for individuals to have more say over the regulation of their own lives rather than less say”

And it is through the adoption of the 6 Demands that that desire can and will be achieved – the last thing the people need is for two MPs and a collection of comedians to decide how money is spent, nor how much or little regulation we have in our lives.

Just saying……….

 

2013
03/23

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Say one thing and do another

Today, Ed Miliband addressed the People’s Policy Forum in Birmingham (text here) and from which the first few words:

“I am delighted to be here today. This is a very special event. What today is about is doing politics in a different way. And doesn’t politics need it? Because I think we have to do politics in a different way. You can watch politicians trading blows in the House of Commons each week. Sometimes I enjoy it and sometimes I don’t. But it’s not necessarily very enlightening. We’ve got to take politics back to where it belongs: to you. So that’s why we’ve said: you set the agenda.”

He then continued by telling the audience what he intended to do, were he to become prime minister. Apparently the contradiction of what followed his opening remarks completely escaped him. After his speech there was a Q&A session with the audience and courtesy of John Rentoul on Twitter a lady with an American accent asked: “Why don;t you take back privatisation of gas, electricity and water?” – cue much applause. On querying EdM’s response with Rentoul the reply EdM gave was: “First, I’m not sure its the answer but, second, we won’t have the money to do it”. Being charitable to EdM one can only presume his reply was code for “HMV (Brussels), they say no!”.

Of course, if politicians did wish to enact that which they profess (which we know damn well they don’t) and take politic back to where it belongs – to we the people, thereby letting us set the agenda – then they would voluntarily adopt the principles of direct democracy. On this point, reader’s attention is drawn to John Redwood’s blog and a post today entitled “L’etat ce n’est pas moi”, from which the last paragraph:

“The big problem with western democracy is the tendency for politicians driving the state to spend and tax too much, damaging the freedom and independence of the people who have to support the state. I wish over the next few days to explore this paradox of freedom. Many people contributing to this blog will say “L’etat ce n’est pas moi”. They do not want the state to spend so much of their money, and disagree with many of its decisions. As we will see, they will however end up paying the bills if they stay in the country.”

Redwood’s attempt to explain what he terms a paradox of freedom should provide a rich vein for comment in the days to come. Interestingly, in the comments section one comment would appear to have adopted Demand #5 of the 6 Demands:

“The main problem most so called democracies have, seems to be the ability to borrow money on the peoples behalf.If the ability to borrow money was halted (other than in times of war to DEFEND the HOMELAND), then Governments would need to be more honest with their taxation and spending plans.At the moment we have a situation where the majority of the people attempt to be sensible with their own finances, only to find that their own financial budgets are cast to the winds by feckless politicians who always want more.Introduce Statute that no government can borrow money on the peoples behalf, and you not only go a good way to restoring the finances, but also returning to a proper more transparent democratic system of accountability.”

to which I have responded and, one could say, thrown down the gauntlet to John Redwood.

Today was also the Ukip Spring Conference, so a question to my Ukip readers: Why has the page: “Constitution Ukip policy 2009 – How we are governed”" disappeared” (“404″ results)? Even clicking on “Manifesto” does not produce any policy about our constitution. From memory this document promised referenda on “selected” or “certain” matters (apols, can recall the exact wording); but selected or certain were not specified. Why will Ukip, which professes to be a Libertarian party, not adopt the principles of direct democracy – sorry, rhetorical question, because like all present political parties they wish to retain their power over we the people. Were a miracle to happen and Ukip formed a government, where the matter of our system of democracy is concerned – and the deficits contained therein, we are back to the age-old adage: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

It hardly needs pointing out that were just one political party to adopt the principles of direct democracy there will be no need for the people to, eventually, become so revolting…….

 

2013
02/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
26 Comments »

Send in the army?

Yesterday I mentioned a discussion I had with John Redwood, Conservative – Wokingham, a leading “eurosceptic”; or so we are led to believe.

I thought I would post two screenshots of the discussion:

Redwood 1That brought forth the following:

Redwood 2Readers may accuse me of argumentativeness; and that my “attack” on John Redwood is unfair – but consider:

Here we have a Member of Parliament deliberately promoting a course of action which is completely pointless and would not achieve the desired result; who deigns not to engage with a member of the electorate and thus chooses to ignore that which is put to him by way of counter argument; who has prattled on in the past repeating the need for Cameron’s renegotiation meme; and is reduced to making utterly ridiculous comments about armies; a statement that beggars belief.

Members of Parliament are supposed to “guide” public opinion with their “wisdom” and in using said wisdom, be the guardians of our nation while also being a servant of the people. In this regard John Redwood stands guilty of dereliction of duty and, dare one say, political illiteracy. Not that Redwood is alone, he most definitely is not – unfortunately space does not permit the listing of all those like him.

Not that that that problem is limited to national governance, local governance is also open to the same charge of dereliction of duty, especially where political illiteracy is concerned. I posted about this problem with our system of democracy yesterday, a post which unfortunately does not seem to have attracted much attention.

Far be it for me to speak for others, suffice it to say that I believe those of us who take an interest in politics per se are totally frustrated with those who are supposed to guide us, but do not; who are supposed to have wisdom, but have not; who are supposed to be the guardians of our nation, but are not; and who are supposed to be the servants of the people, but most definitely are not.

So now can we have a serious debate in this country about our system of democracy – please?

Afterthought: If nothing else shows what a farce is our system of democracy then it must be that Owen Paterson has to admit that he is unable to do what he would like to do because of our subservience to Brussels!

2013
02/09

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Article 50 – and a “nag” or two…….

There has appeared on the blog of The Boiling Frog three articles on the above subject which should be required reading for all those interested in matters EU.

Besides being highly informative TBF debunks the arguments which are raised, should the UK invoke Article 50, about “punitive” laws being imposed on us, which as he states would be against the fundamental principles of the treaties and spirit of the EU and the Single Market. In dealing with the two-year period stipulated within Article 50 (it can, as TBF, states be shortened or lengthened by agreement) he explains how such punitive laws could not be imposed due to the timescale that the formation of law takes. In the final part TBF deals with the matter of possible retribution measures that might be taken by the EU for failing to implement any such law – were it able to be passed -  or, come to that, any law passed within this two year period.

There are two further points worth making at this juncture, one of which TBF covers in his articles. The first of these points is to do with the “repeal the ECA1972 and with one bound we are free” meme, one that once again John Redwood was proposing just a few days ago – a post within which when challenged by me in the comments section he refused to accept that he was wrong, although he did have the grace to concede that exiting from the EU via Article 50 was another way. With such “leading lights” as Redwood within the eurosceptic camp, one is left with a sense of foreboding where the success of the ‘No’ campaign is concerned.

The second point worth making is that Farage and Ukip, among others, are clamouring for a referendum now and until a week or so ago – on the occasion of Cameron’s speech – Farage had not mentioned the magic words “Article 50″. Having at last done so, why did the content of TBF’s three articles not appear on Ukip’s website? Why does it take an independent blogger to do this type of work?

On that last point, let me move onto the “matter du jour” – and no, it is not the EU budget “agreement”, another story on which the media have it so wrong – namely the question of horse meat having been found to enter the food chain. Richard North, EUReferendum, has three posts, here, here and here which are also “required reading” on this subject. Again, one has to query why it should be an independent blogger who provides all the “detail” and information? Just where are the MSM? As Richard North points out, this entire matter has arisen through a checking system introduced by the EU and which relies purely on a “paper trail” and as such is a massive failure by the EU. Food is an EU competence, as Owen Paterson has stated, consequently the UK cannot take unilateral action to solve the difficulties that the problem has thrown up which means that the incompetents that caused this problem – the EU – are now involved, something which does not give one much confidence in the new measures that will surely be forthcoming. One also has to ask where Ukip and Farage are on this matter as their silence has been rather noticeable – should they not be at the forefront of the condemnation, explaining how and why it has arisen?  At the time of writing, this is Ukip’s home page:

Neither the political class nor the MSM have the slightest understanding of the word omnishambles when they use it, which no doubt they will once they realize the true extent of this problem that presently nags at our attention. In plain, simple English it is not an omnishambles, it is a complete disaster, as is the European Union, politics in the UK and they system of democracy under which and by which we are governed.

2013
01/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Redwood/Referenda/Norway

John Redwood posts today on “Shades of Euroscepticism” from which, the last paragraph:

“There are the Come outers in UKIP constantly saying that the only answer is immediate withdrawal. They  assert that we need to withdraw without explaining how that is going to happen. There are the Better off outers within the Conservative Parliamentary party, who do work with others to try to limit further transfers of power and to start to shift things back. There are many suggestions on the combination of referenda, votes in  Parliament and clauses of the Treaty that could get us out or get us into a new relationship, but less thought about how the Eurosceptic majority can unite its forces to have its way.”

John Redwood is quite correct in his summation of Ukip – lets face it, as the only party shouting for a referendum the least they could do is explain to people how they intend extricating Britain from the clutches of the EU. Thereafter I must take issue with what follows, not that Redwood is proposing the suggestions to which he refers. However, one would have thought he might have taken the time to explain that votes in Parliament will not extricate Britain and that there is only one clause (not clauses) in the Lisbon Treaty by which we can extricate ourselves.

I see from the speccie that the David Cameron met a group of Tory backbenchers in Downing Street this afternoon to discuss his forthcoming Europe speech. John Baron, Peter Bone, Edward Leigh, Mark Reckless, Philip Davies and Steve Baker attended the meeting. They were representing the 100 Conservative backbenchers who had signed the original letter in June calling for legislation in this Parliament for a referendum in the next. From Isobel Hardman’s last paragraph it would appear that John Baron has been “sold” this renegotiation meme?

Digressing, on the referendum question, in order to satisfy my understanding when speaking about Norway and referenda, I emailed the Norwegian Embassy in London and the following, from Hauge Lars-Erik, is the response:

“As you correctly point out, referendums are not mentioned in the Norwegian constitution (Grunnloven). The referendums in 1972 and 1994 regarding membership in the EC/EU respectively, were so-called advisory/consultative referendums. The system of parliamentary rule means that it is the Storting (parliament) that determines the composition of the Norwegian Government. It is also the decision of the Storting to decide whether or not to initiate a referendum on a particular issue; http://www.stortinget.no/no/In-English/About-the-Storting/“

The Norwegian constitution to which I referred in my email can be read here. Interesting to see that in Norway, as here in the UK, the people’s ability to have a referendum is by means of a “gift” from their politicians.

2012
12/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

You can’t have your cake and eat it

John Redwood writes on “Freedom and Evil”, a post that is centred largely about the pros and cons of the  matter of gun control, following the events in the USA of yesterday. It may seem unfair, by some, to take that which he writes about an extremely serious and horrific matter ‘out of context’ – but hey, that which he wrote, is written. From the opening of his post:

“I tend to favour more freedom and less government.”

This from a politician that believes in the system of representative democracy – a system that permits those elected to the House of Commons to behave as virtual dictators for a period of 5 years; and then return on bended knee before us, requesting that we allow them to continue with that practice of dictatorship.

This from a politician who believes that only those elected have the right – and knowledge – to decide the fate of those that they are supposed to represent, but don’t.

This from a politician who believes in parliamentary democracy, a system of democracy that cements his belief that only the House of Commons can decide which powers, that politicians have usurped from the people over decades, should be returned to the people – and returned with inbuilt caveats.

This from a politician who, believing in the system of government known as representative democracy, will never therefore cede squat-diddley, where even squat-diddley would involve the loss of one inch of the power they now have over the people.

It would seem that our ‘home-grown’ JR has much in common with his initial-namesake of Dallas fame – they both, in their own eras, appear to ‘use’ people in order to achieve their own personal aims.

If John Redwood truly believed in that which he wrote – about more freedom and less government – then he would be a vociferous voice for the aims of the Harrogate Agenda and their 6 demands – would he not?

Just asking…….

2012
11/24

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
1 Comment »

John Redwood on Parliamentary Sovereignty

John Redwood posts asking the question: “Is Parliament still sovereign” in which the following passage appears:

“These large transfer of power away from a sovereign Parliament has led some to welcome a new era of diffused or spread power, whilst for many others it has led to frustration that elected MPs and Ministers can no longer do as they think the electorate wish. A government can look impotent if it cannot extradite who it likes, control its own borders, decide what interest rates should be or how banks should be controlled, or settle the price of energy and how it is to be produced.”

First of all John Redwood needs to realize that Parliament should never and can never consider itself ‘sovereign’ because Parliament is not, contrary to what he thinks, the ultimate source of power. It cannot be repeated enough – and John Redwood and his ilk need to get it into their heads – that it is the people that are sovereign because the people in their collective form, by giving their consent, comprise the ultimate authority of their nation and are thus the source of all political power.

It is because of that statement John Redwood also needs to accept that we are not interested in whether elected MPs and Ministers can do as they think the electorate wishes – MPs and Ministers are not elected to think what the electorate wishes, they are there to do what the electorate wishes; and that is an aspect of democracy which is sorely missing at present and is the reason for the formation of the 6 Demands of the Harrogate Agenda. As an aside, reverting to the extract quoted above, I would have added to Redwood’s words: “….and regulate every aspect of our lives”.

It is also noticeable that John Redwood believes that Parliament should continue as an elected ‘dictatorship’ during its 5-year terms because there is not one word in his article on sovereignty about the role of the people that he believes he serves. It is hardly surprising that politics in this country is but a sham when an MP, reputedly of ‘some note’, can write:

“Parliament is still technically sovereign, because it can repeal or amend the 1972 European Communities Act, the fount of the EU’s power in the UK.”

and not be challenged on such a statement. Repeal of ECA 1972 does not, by itself, extract this country from membership of the European Union. We are bound by an international treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon; and, no doubt, by the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties. John Redwood also needs to be reminded that repeal of ECA 1972 would be a constitutional act and, as such, would not be recognized by the European Union.

The comments to Redwood’s post are illuminating and display, dare one say, in general, a mindset of ignorance – especially where ‘Edward’ comments on the slur of a very very decent person, namely Mr. Hannon [sic]. Peter Geany makes a fair stab at repeating the argument of Richard North where extraction of this country from the clutches of the EU are concerned, including, at the end of his comment, what is a most pertinent question posed initially by Richard North – and one to which I have yet to see any of the political class rebut.

What is obvious is that that part of the present class of politician – aka Eurosceptics – seem intent on reclaiming the ‘absolute rule’ they once enjoyed as against the ‘pretend rule’ they currently have.

And into the hands of such people should we place our future and that of our country? I don’t think so.

 

2012
09/19

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:







COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Wherefore democracy?

“The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs are involved in considering and proposing new laws, and can use their position to ask government ministers questions about current issues.”

UK Parliament website.

In the media today we are informed that:

  1. With the recent killings of two police officers our elected representatives have been hitting the airwaves to inform us that restoration of the death penalty – likewise arming our police – would be a retrograde step with Nick Clegg warning against arming the police in response to the death of two police officers; Philip Davis being quoted as saying the case for restoration of the death penalty grows stronger by the day; Norman Tebbit stating that the “deterrent effect of the shadow of the gallows” should be debated. In this instance it has now been confirmed that the  man suspected of killing the two PCs in Greater Manchester was on bail over a fatal pub shooting.
  2. Politics Home informs us that the Home Office is bringing in new guidelines for domestic abuse cases to include non-violent coercion, such as preventing someone from leaving the house. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the changes would “help expose the true face of domestic violence, which is much more complex and much more widespread than people often realise”. The new definition will be implemented by March 2013 and follows a 15-week consultation which took views from the public, victims, charities and frontline agencies. Coercive behaviour is described as “an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim”. The Government also announced today a Young People’s Panel set up by the NSPCC which will help inform the Government’s work to tackle domestic violence. Action for Children has piled in lobbying for these new ‘laws’ to be applied for the benefit of children and Yvette Cooper has not missed an opportunity to make a political point.
  3. With yet more tinkering to our education system, this time by Michael Gove, John Redwood appears to be sitting on the fence.
  4. We are informed by EurActiv that the introduction of smart meters is to proceed following the publication of a ‘benchmark report’, one due for mid-201, on the cost and benefits of smart meters (and we all know that we will be told obviously the benefits will be great and the cost minimial – when in actual fact benefits and costs finding in practice will be reversed). The roll-out of smart meters has already begun in this country with our government still determined to have 30million electricity meters and 23 million gas meters replaced by the 2019, at a cost of £11.7 billion to energy customers, recovered through their bills – despite a false-start, the cost of which will no doubt also end up on our bills.
  5. Yesterday, we witnessed a Conservative MP telling us what should be done about the question of our nation’s membership of the European Union.

When considering the points above, an immediate question arises – namely, if MPs, who are our elected representatives, are meant to represent our interests and concerns in the House of Commons, then on what basis does any MP pontificate that the death penalty is wrong; on what basis does any MP feel they are able to introduce yet more laws defining how we should interact with each other? Which ever of the above examples you care to select one common factor will be found and that is that not once have the people been consulted – unless of course the political elite do in fact possess God-like powers and, in exercising them, ‘pulled off’ a number of referendums unnoticed?

Over the last few weeks I have attempted, on Twitter, to engage Daniel Hannan, Tom Harris and Glyn Davies in a debate on democracy, representative democracy and the right of people to decide the type of society in which they wish to live and in each instance they cited excuses why it was not appropriate so to do at that particular time. It is logical to presume that their failure to accept the opportunity of debate can only mean they are unable to argue the case for a system they wish to continue.

That MPs do not represent the views and concerns of those that elect them cannot be in dispute as the evidence that they do not is now plain for all to see. A video has just surfaced of Nick Clegg apologising for the fact that he made a pledge on tuition fees and failed to adhere to that pledge. Clegg with Cameron made a pledge that voters would have the right to recall errant MPs, but did not mention that the final decision on the voter’s request would rest with a panel of their own. Why should we trust those whose pledges mean absolutely nothing to them, ones that they break for political expediency or for the simple reason that in making them they had no intention of keeping them?

As I have commented previously – and so many times it is probably becoming tedious for readers to hear it repeated – we are continually informed by our political elite that change is necessary for our country. The only problem with that message is that the change which is necessary is one they do not want and have no intention of giving us.

The change about which I speak is one that would mean people in an area have control over their lives and the type of society in which they live; one that would reinstate the people as the deciding factor in that which happens within and without our country; one that reasserts the status of the people as the only true sovereign entity in our country. Needess to say I talk about the introduction of a system based on the principles of direct democracy.

It is interesting that the one country that practices those principles is Switzerland and doubly interesting that that country would appear to be the destination of politicians wanting to learn more about those principles. Within the UK we are beset, almost on a daily basis, of articles in the media which report on discord within various sections of our society. Yet when one turns to Swiss media the reporting of such discord is, in contrast, virtually negligable – and the reason why is because such problems are resolved by the people within each area (canton) and most noticeably without the interference of central government.

QED?

 

2012
08/05

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:












COMMENTS:
22 Comments »

This renegotiation ‘thingy’ (2)

Apropos my first post today, below is a copy of the letter to which Sean O’Hare referred in his comment on John Redwood’s blog.

(click to enlarge)

Sean O’Hare’s letter was originally forwarded to Ken Clarke who seems to have passed it on to Mark Harper to respond. So Mark Harper believes that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK – a statement which is in stark contrast with the opinion of the European Commission. As an aside it appears also that Magna Carta has been largely repealed – really?

If Magna Carta is considered to be part of the uncodified constitution of our nation; if Lord Denning considered it “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”; if Lord Woolf considered it the “first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status”; why is it that politicians have decided, by the second half of the 19th century, to repeal nearly all of its clauses in their original form and thus negate a document considered to have special constitutional status – and all without the express agreement of those they are meant to serve? Why is it that later politicians, who profess to believe in freedom of the individual, have made no attempt to reverse the decisions of those that have gone before?

If Magna Carta is of such importance that it is the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot, then it sure ain’t had much effect on the aims of our ‘democratically elected despots”! For that reason it is imperative that our system of democracy is changed so that the political elite can be constrained in their lust for total power.

Digressing slightly, watching the Olympics (which I did say I would not do – but hey, how can one not watch someone excelling on behalf of your nation) what struck me was the fervour among the British people that their athletes generated. The challenge that ‘We of Harrogate’ face is instilling a similar fervour in the British people where the democracy and political system of our country is concerned. Politics Home summarizes an article by Sebastian Coe in The Times as: “An Olympics by the people, for the people”. What ‘We of Harrogate’ need to achieve is to instill in the people of Britain a sense of democracy and political system that is ‘by the people, for the people’.

Within emails sent to those who attended ‘Harrogate’ are some who believe that the EU is the ‘enemy’ who should be fought day and night – to whom I can but say: how shortsighted, how deluded. The ‘enemy’ are the 650 who we stupidly elect each 4/5 years, coupled with their sycophantic ’2nd and 3rd XIs’ – the ‘enemy’ are already within our gates. It is important to recall that with any growth it is no use just cutting the foliage, until you remove the root anything else is a complete waste of time and effort. As Richard North has repeatedly stated, the only method by which they will be defeated is by the creation of a movement, one with ideas for change – a change that cannot fail to garner more and more popular support as its beliefs are made known.

Once again, just saying………..

Older Entries

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012